Relative to nonpublic sessions under the right to know law.
Impact
If enacted, HB652 would modify existing state laws related to governance and the accessibility of information to the public. The change is expected to shift the dynamics of how nonpublic sessions are conducted, as this bill caters specifically to protecting the rights of individuals when their reputations may be at stake. The consequences include potentially extending the duration of nonpublic meetings, as more time will be necessary for notifications and discussions tailored to impacted persons, thereby possibly straining the resources of public bodies.
Summary
House Bill 652 (HB652) addresses the operations of public bodies in New Hampshire during nonpublic sessions, specifically under the right to know law. The bill requires that when a public body convenes a nonpublic session to discuss matters that may adversely impact an individual's reputation, that individual must receive notification at least 48 hours in advance. Moreover, the affected person is granted the right to participate in the meeting, be represented by counsel, and speak on their own behalf. This aims to enhance transparency and ensure that individuals have a say when discussions may concern their reputations.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB652 appears to reflect a strong desire for personal rights and transparency concerning governmental operations. Supporters of the bill argue that it is a necessary step to safeguard individual rights in governmental proceedings, fostering a more open dialogue within public bodies. Conversely, there may be concerns regarding the administrative burdens placed on public officials and the potential delays in decision-making processes which could arise from the requirement for prior notification and individual participation.
Contention
Notable points of contention regarding HB652 revolve around the impact of the required notifications on the efficiency of public bodies. Critics, primarily local government representatives, express concerns about the increased administrative costs and labor necessary to comply with the new requirements. Specifically, the bill has been perceived as an additional obligation that might slow down decision-making processes, particularly in scenarios involving sensitive issues like tax abatements or municipal welfare applications, which generally require timely actions.
Removing fees and charges for governmental records under the right-to-know law and reinstating potential liability for disclosure of information exempt from disclosure.